Let us now praise the popularity of presidential debates

The audience size for the Romney-Obama presidential debates was a near record, showing a hunger for civic life and for leaders who can uplift society.

AP Photo
Xavier Marrufo, right, and friends in Miramar, Fla., watch the Oct. 16 debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama.

 One measure of a common concern for the public interest among Americans is the number of people who watch the presidential debates every four years. Well, congratulations on having community spirit in 2012. The Oct. 3 debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney had a near-record number of viewers.

The candidate match-up drew more than 70 million people when you count all those watching on any electronic device such as tablets and not just on network TV. And given how few voters are undecided in the 2012 contest, the audience size for this event is even more amazing.

It shows not only a hunger for information and live TV drama but a desire to join a significant civic gathering. The only television event with a larger audience this year was the Super Bowl. Even the nightly broadcasts of the London Summer Olympics didn’t beat out the debate.

The second debate’s viewership was down by only 2.4 percent from the first one. Some websites reported even higher traffic. If the third debate, set for Monday with a focus on foreign affairs, is also high, then that would also be a welcome sign of how engaged voters are in their country’s future.

The high ratings could be a reaction to the tsunami of negative political ads. A recent study by the Wesleyan Media Project found less than 8 percent of presidential ads were positive. That’s down from 19 percent in 2008 and 30 percent in 2000.

Among younger voters, turnout at the polls Nov. 6 is expected to be lower than four years ago when enthusiasm for Mr. Obama was high, according to a poll by the Harvard Institute of Politics. But one reason for the possible lower turnout is that the current generation of young people puts a higher premium on community service than on political engagement – by 31 percent to 19 percent.

Based on a 2006 study, most people who don’t vote tend to be single and less engaged in their community. In theory, presidential debates should help promote civic-mindedness by offering a rational discourse on issues. Viewers are collectively listening for how each candidate can bring good to society and for ideas that are worthy of praise.

If each candidate shows a forbearance for the other’s ideas, rather than uttering personal put-downs, then such behavior helps Americans debate the issues with others in a civil way that builds mutual trust.

But respectful debate isn’t the only thing that can improve civic-minded behavior. Children who regularly celebrate Fourth of July events were more likely to vote as adults, based on a 2010 Harvard study.

One indicator of the need to elevate community engagement is that the civics knowledge among high school seniors has gone down since 1998, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Kids must be able to see adults involved in political life to turn that trend around.

With so many people watching this year’s presidential debates, perhaps the next generation is seeing how it, too, can eventually find a shared concern for the public good.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.